Needs to be disbarred and tried for treason https://www.rebelnews.com/new_york_judge_says_2nd_amendment_doesn_t_exist_in_this_courtroom_in_ghost_gun_caseNew York judge says 2nd Amendment 'doesn't exist in this courtroom' in ghost gun caseLawyer says the judge instructed them not to invoke a constitutional right in trial of hobbyist gunsmith.By Ian Miles Cheong | April 26, 2024 | NewsNew York judge says 2nd Amendment 'doesn't exist in this courtroom' in ghost gun casePublic DomainA defense attorney claims that the New York judge overseeing the prosecution of a man charged with manufacturing homemade firearms, known as "ghost guns," barred any arguments invoking the Second Amendment right to bear arms.Vinoo Varghese, the lawyer representing Dexter Taylor, said Judge Abena Darkeh explicitly told the defense, "Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn't exist here. So you can't argue Second Amendment. This is New York," the National Pulse reports.Judge Darkeh, who has been criticized as a Bill de Blasio "DEI hire" who also serves as vice president of the Association of Ghanaian Lawyers of America, has been criticized by online commentators who have described her as a "diversity, equity and inclusion hire." She is accused of acting as "the most aggressive prosecutor in the room" and limiting the scope of Taylor's defense.
Taylor, a 52-year-old Black conservative who has discussed gunsmithing as a hobby on YouTube under the name "Carbon Mike," faces a potential sentence of 10 to 18 years in prison at his sentencing scheduled for May 18. Prosecutors have described him as having "acquired a massive arsenal of homemade ghost guns," while Taylor maintains he was merely assembling legal gun parts as a hobby and did not sell or distribute any firearms.The defense argues that federal law allows unlicensed civilians to manufacture firearms for personal use only, under the Gun Control Act of 1968. They contend Taylor, who says he has a "squeaky-clean criminal record," did not even fire the guns he assembled.The case has drawn comparisons to advice columnist E. Jean Carroll, who previously boasted about owning an unlicensed firearm before police confiscated it earlier this month. There is no evidence Ms. Carroll was arrested or charged with a crime.UNITED STATES NEW YORK NEWS
>>1290934I'M OUTRAGED!!!1 SHE OUGHT TO APOLOGIZE!11
Getting disbarred speedrun: Juneteenth edition
>>1290935>The defense argues that federal law allows unlicensed civilians to manufacture firearms for personal use onlyHow is this guy even being prosecuted, assuming that the gun receivers had their serial numbers and he legally bought them according to state and federal laws?
>>1291009>How is this guy even being prosecutedIt's NY. It's the most corrupt state in the country with the most kangaroo-est courts in the country.
>>1291009>How is this guy even being prosecutedMost people don't have the financial ability to fight the state in court forever. In fact I don't think anyone actually does.
>>1291009>How is this guy even being prosecuted, assuming that the gun receivers had their serial numbers and he legally bought them according to state and federal laws?He didn't though. He violated state laws. Unconstitutional draconian laws, but yes, he did break the law. In New York, it's illegal to possess an unregistered firearm, or any firearm (including frames and receivers) without a serial number. The Jose Webster Untraceable Firearms Act and the Scott J. Beigel Unfinished Receiver Act make up the bulk of these laws. They deliberately use a lot of vague language and fail to define terms they've used, in order to muddy the law and make it unapparent in its breadth. New York is sadly a shithole where the worst of firearms related crimes, the kinds we often see portrayed in movies and TV shows, actually occur quite regularly. New York has had to deal with criminal organizations selling guns out of gas stations, convenience stores, bars, last year they broke up a gun trafficking ring that provided same-day delivery to your door in Amazon packaging. These groups cater exclusively to violent criminals, and are often affiliated with local gangs. Some obtain or produce guns out of state specifically to be brought into New York for sale; there has been more than one instance of tracing back gun sales in New York to small operations in neighboring states where gang-members are 3D printing receivers for this purpose. What a shit-hole New York is.
>>1291002Naah she's fine. No one cares that she said that but gun nuts, and there aren't enough of them to matter.
>>1291025>In New York, it's illegal to possess an unregistered firearm, or any firearm (including frames and receivers) without a serial number.Except federal law trumps state law and federal law defines a "firearm" as the serial numbered receiver?
>>1291030> federal law defines a "firearm" as the serial numbered receiverThat's not the case, in fact the feds don't give a fuck about serial numbers unless you're a manufacturer who produces and sells firearms. Not one fuck given, serial numbers do not matter in the US, even the ATF considers them a joke and admits that the vast majority of guns are "effectively" untraceable shortly after their initial sale. They don't require you to serialize a firearm unless you wish to transfer it, and even then you can legally approach a smith with the appropriate FFL in order to have a homemade firearm serialized.>federal law trumps state lawkekAre you even an American?
>>1291034NTA, but:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause>The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.I assume the loophole argument being allowed here is that the federal government doesn't have any "applicable" law in this specific case and so state law applies; but there's absolutely no question that federal law has supremacy over state law.
>>1291035NTA but marijuana and abortion laws prove states don't give a flying fuck about federal law as long as the feds aren't enforcing things.
>>1291038Yes, our system of laws operates on dogshit and officer/prosecutorial discretion. We certainly agree on that much.That's the problem with putting judges/DAs in office who don't care about following what the law is.
>>1290934Fucking disgraceful, she shouldn't be a judge.
>>1291035There's no loophole, NY and the city in particular just hate people that own guns. There is no logic here.>>1291026You're right, we should disarm all black men like this one.
>>1291009>boughthe was building them which has literally always been fine everywhere in the country until recently>How is this guy even being prosecuted,jew york isn't un the US
>>1291026>no its fine when judges decide the bill of rights don't applycool, I'll become a judge and convict people for being jewish
>>1291030>Except federal law trumps state lawnot in all cases, though the law in question is obviously not constitutional because people made their own guns in 1792 and 1868>>1291035jews have allowed states to have state laws that are more strict than federal gun laws for a long ass time. Not all or many of them have gotten nuked since mcdonald is only 14 years old
>>1291067>people made their own guns in 1792 and 1868Thomas Jefferson>our citizens have always been free to make, vend, and export arms. It is the constant occupation and livelihood of some of them.>As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.>I ask the acceptance, by your son, of a keep-sake from me. it is an article of the tackle of a gun-man, offering the convenience of carrying the powder & shot together. I presume he is a gun-man, as I am sure he ought to be, and every American who wishes to protect his farm from the ravages of quadrupeds & his country from those of biped invaders.>No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.Even before the USA gained independence from Britain, there was widespread legal manufacture and use of firearms. In 1606, King James the First established that the colonies had the right to import necessary goods from Britain, including firearms and ammunition. The 1620 Charter of New England gave colonists the right “to take, load, carry, and transport . . . Armour, Weapons, Ordinances, Munition, Powder, Shott, . . . and all other Things necessary for the said Plantation, and for their Use and Defence, and for Trade with the People there.” Gunsmithing was widespread and essential to early colonial life, and was a far reaching and established industry by the 17th century with laws in place to defend the ability to produce and sell arms and armor. I'm just a history fag, I have no real contribution here.
>>1291075neat. I was just doing the bruen test. per bruen for a gun law to be legal there needs to be a tradition of 3 or more laws regulating it in 1792, when the 2nd amendment was ratified or 1868 when the 14th amendment was ratified. This basically means only laws about guns on school grounds are legal. As you put it, until 2 or 3 years ago there literally weren't any regulations on building guns in your home for your own personal use and it was a tradition even pre revolution
>>1291075The problem is it was completely unfeasible to confiscate weapons from the peasants in the founding of America. There were wild animals and hostile natives; everyone had to be armed. Coming from a completely conquered island where the only real threat comes from the government, it was a completely different world.Now we've come to the point where America doesn't normally face the risk of wild animal or hostile native attacks; naturally the ruling elite want to go ahead and do away with the armed peasantry.The problem is America isn't a tiny fucking island ruled by the crown.
>>1291087this guy in OP is from NYC and I can assure you there are violent wild animals in NYC who play the knock out game
>>1291088Touche.
>>1291075A good post on /news/? The end times are upon us
>>1290934IS SHE REAL? JUDGE DARKIE (DARKEH) NO WAY.
>>1291114sometimes meme magic finds a way
>>1291087The British didn't feel the need to revise their end of things until 1968, despite being a teeny tiny conquered island nation 850 years older than the USA. The US has over 75x greater land-mass, 5x greater variety of native mammals, 5x the human population, and 1/8th the population density. Every year the USA sees over 47,000 cases of wild animal attacks wherein the victim seeks medical attention. (That is specifically wild animals, not pets or livestock, including those pushes the numbers past 3 million) The UK sees so few they fail to track the stats, estimates put it around 1/60th-1/100th the rate of the United States when considering population, so roughly 75-122 total per year. Being 60x-100x more likely to be attacked by a wild animal is good reason for an American to stay armed.The USA has 5x the population of the UK and 4.8x as many homes. However, the UK has 1.36x as many hot burglaries, burglaries that occurs while the resident is home. 240,500 yearly in the UK versus 175,500 in the USA. That makes it about 6.6x more likely per household to experience a hot burglary in the UK, or roughly 6.8x more likely for a UK resident to be the victim of a hot burglary. You have a 119% greater chance of experiencing a hot burglary in the UK than you do a car theft in the United States. There is a 1.5x greater chance of having your car stolen in the United States compared to the UK. However, the rate of vehicle thefts that do not result in recovery is 6.47x greater in the UK. The total number of vehicles stolen and never recovered in the USA yearly is around 50,000, versus 65,000 in the UK. For any given vehicle on the road, including passenger and commercial vehicles, there is an 8.78x greater chance of it being stolen and never recovered in the UK.Shithole island of damp and regret. I have no argument, I just dislike the UK and know their citizens would be safer if their government allowed them their God-given right to arm themselves.
>>1291122the major bong gun regs date back to the interwar period, not 1968. Granted there were gun laws pre WWI and as you are saying they got more strict in 1968 (weird how the US, bongland and aus all pushed stricter gun laws in the interwar period, late 60s and late 80s to early mid 90s).Anyway the first real major anti gun bong law dates back to the interwar period because the bongs were worried the returning troops who were coming home from WWI with training and the market being flooded by cheap surplus rifles would result on bong men overthrowing the queen
>>1291122>The British didn't feel the need to revise their end of things until 1968I heavily disagree, friend. I'm pretty sure the common peasantry in Brittain during the 1700s didn't have a clue how to load and effectively use a rifle, let alone have one, whereas anyone coming to America either learned quickly or died. It's a very deep cultural difference, in my humble opinion.They may have officially banned guns in the UK in the 90s, but it goes back much earlier than that.
>>1291122>>1291124unfortunately this. From what I've read read/heard even though there weren't really any gun regulations in bongland until the late 1800s and 1920s most bongs would not have owned or been trained to use a gun because they are all poor fucks so only soldiers and the rich would have been armed. You can see this in King Philips war where the bong farmers didn't show up with guns to the US and were getting btfo'd by the injins superior firepower they got from the frogs. US gun culture was largely formed as a response to injin attacks because without injins most farmers saw guns as something too expensive and unneeded to bother buying
>>1291124>I'm pretty sure the common peasantry in Brittain during the 1700s didn't have a clue how to load and effectively use a rifle, let alone have oneOh my nigga, no. Guns were prohibitively expensive worldwide in the 17th century, they only became accessible and more commonplace in the 1700s. The Brits were at war almost constantly from about 1680 until well into the 1800s. The Nine Years War, the American Revolutionary War, the Napoleonic Wars, they were raising armies of over 150,000-200,000 men throughout the 1800s. By the 18th century Britain was producing massive quantities of arms, they had far more gunsmiths and greater rate of production than the United States, and we wouldn't surpass them until late into the19th century after the American Civil War. They had a production rate of over a million guns yearly by 1815 with a massive rate of export, they were producing enough arms within the UK to arm every adult male citizen resident to the island yearly. The East India Company and Hudson Bay Company bought massive quantities of arms, either for export to colonies and foreign partners, or for their own use acting similarly to mercenaries at the behest of the British. They made so many guns that they were one of the most common commodities traded for slaves during the 19th century, often "cheap" arms that had relatively short lifespans. Their citizens had access to firearms not unlike Americans in the 19th century, and they were similarly commonplace for purposes of hunting, but admittedly would never see a similar rate of ownership for pretty obvious reasons considering what American life was like at the time.tl;dr they cucked themselves by not buying guns even when they could actually afford them even more readily than the average American
>>1291129I don't disagree with the numbers you're citing here, but I do think you're drawing the wrong conclusion. None of what you've said here indicates the "peasant" population of the UK had access to these weapons outside of the military. (under strict regulations from the government) And when soldiers came back from WW2 they were actively disarmed... for some reason.Something like 40-50% of the population of the UK served in the military in WW2. (I'm trying to find solid numbers now, but that's hard) Only something like 9% of the population in the US served in WW2, as a comparison. Germany had ~30% serving.TLDR: I believe all of the large scale firearm manufacturing you're referring to was under total control of the UK government and not the peasants.
Violent gun schizos crying and shitting their pants, yet again
>>1291132that literally isn't what is happening in this topic jew
>>1291131I see your point, I'm not differentiating between "familiarity" and actual ownership/usage of firearms. When there are numerous factory-towns dedicated to the production of firearms, and numerous related industries feeding firearms production, surely the average person would be "familiar" with firearms, but that certainly doesn't mean there was common ownership and usage even during periods when arms were said to be similarly available and affordable. It's been cited that they deliberately disarmed returning soldiers as early as the 18th century, and likely earlier albeit for economic reasons.
>>1291131even if the majority of bongs were conscripted into the military in the 1700s there really was not that much in terms of firearms training at the time. it was something like they were only issued 30 training round per year
>>1291137You've got a little froth on your chin...
>>1291150I think your bot is broken JIDF
>>1291065>>bought>he was building them which has literally always been fine everywhere in the country until recentlyDid he not buy serial numbered receivers (i.e. the "firearm" as defined by the law)? If so, building a kit gun on a legally purchased serial numbered receiver is perfectly legal, unless something has changed that I haven't heard about?
>>1291451He was MAKING the firearms, the receivers, without serial numbers. That's perfectly legal in the US, but New York has their own laws in place that make it illegal.
>>1291452>That's perfectly legal in the USCite?
>>1291454There isn't a law somewhere that says you can, sure as shit isn't one that says you can't. It is perfectly legal to produce a firearm in the USA so long as you are not barred from owning that firearm. For example, you can't make a full-auto rifle, because you can't legally own one without a tax stamp that they won't sell you, so you can't do it. You can make a silencer, short-barreled rifle, or other "regulated" item so long as you do the paperwork and pay for the tax stamp, almost the same as if you were purchasing one. If you can legally own a firearm, you can build that firearm. You absolutely do not need a serial number, serial numbers are for manufacturers. There's no actual requirement for a firearm to have a serial number, only that manufacturers add serial numbers, individuals do not have to give a shit. You cannot make firearms to sell them, that's manufacturing and does require a license. You cannot transfer an unserialized firearm, if you have a homemade gun that you decide later to sell (which is legal) or give away, you'll need a gunsmith to accept it as an unserialized firearm and give it a serial number. It may be possible to do your own serial number, I'm not certain, I've not looked into that specifically. State laws vary, notably New York and California, have their own laws that may inhibit your ability to legally produce a firearm, or may require additional considerations like a serial number, I think California does that. Americans have ALWAYS made their own guns, even before it was the USA we were specifically allowed by the British to import firearms and the goods required to produce, maintain, and operate them. (>>1291075) There is an entire industry built around supplying individuals who make their own firearms, and 3D printing has made it more accessible than ever. Fuckloads of people in the US legally produce their own unserialized firearms.https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-individual-need-license-make-firearm-personal-use
>>1291454NTA but I'll do your googling for your sorry, lazy asshttps://www.atf.gov/firearms/privately-made-firearms>Individuals who make their own firearms may use a 3D printing process or any other process, as long as the firearm is “detectable” as defined in the Gun Control Act. You do not have to add a serial number or register the PMF if you are not engaged in the business of making firearms for livelihood or profit.
>>1291462>There isn't a law somewhere that says you can, sure as shit isn't one that says you can't.This is also correct. There aren't a list of laws that say what you're allowed to do. There's a list of things you aren't allowed to do, and the government has no authority to relate your activity outside of those specific things.
>>1291451>>1291454https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-%E2%80%9C80%E2%80%9D-or-%E2%80%9Cunfinished%E2%80%9D-receivers-illegalI'm pretty sure the GayTF still hasn't managed to define 80% receivers/frames as guns. If you start with an 80% it isn't a gun and you can finish it on your own. There is no federal law saying you need a serial number on a gun you made yourself and no federal law blocking you from making your own nonNFA guns for personal use. The only issue from a fed standpoint would be making machine guns/short barreled rifles or if you were making guns to sell them. Some guy in california was making ARs for felons and got away with it because the felon hit the button on the CNC machine and not him. any regulations about making your own gun for personal use have only come about in the last 10 or so years in blue states who want to ban guns. And there is no fucking way this shit passes the bruen test because people have been making their own guns for all of US history. IDK if NY is exactly the same as NJ, but the NJ version of this law means you are a felon if you buy a black powder kit and build your own single shot musket/davey crocket rifle. That is how fucking retarded anti gunners are
>>1290934>>1290935>>1290936>>1291002>>1291009>>1291012>>1291018>>1291025>>1291026>>1291030>>1291034>>1291035>>1291038>>1291038>>1291040>>1291048>>1291052>>1291052>>1291065>>1291066>>1291067>>1291075>>1291081>>1291087>>1291088>>1291089>>1291090>>1291114>>1291117>>1291122>>1291123>>1291124>>1291125>>1291129Assuming the news is real news and not just a fake thread made to slander people... ...Please explain this concept to a non-American: can a judge say something like that in court without throwing up the entire trial?t. No opinion on guns, but if a judge in my country spoke against the Constitution while in court (and not, say, in an academic setting) she would be glassed.
>>1290934>https://www.rebelnews.com
>>1290934I just want to thank OP for pasting the article so we can finally have a thread discussing gun rights on /news/>>1291811He can appeal it for sure, and if it makes it's way to the US Supreme Court he would win, but that costs money.And remember that half of Americans (and 90% of people in NYC) are against the Second Amendment, so she won't actually face any consequences. Democrats don't give a fuck about the Constitution
>>1291811Technically no, but realistically a judge can pull something like this with little or no consequences. The guy will have to appeal which will take a long time and he'll likely be in jail while that goes on. The state will fight the appeal because they are never wrong. Best case is that his conviction gets tossed. The judge will likely not have anything happen to her because she is doing what the NYC government wants.
>>1291196Why so antisemitic?
>>1291887Well, nothing is going to happen to the judge because she did nothing wrong. >>1291861>Democrats don't give a fuck about the ConstitutionSays the member of a party whose president wanted to suspend the constitution because he lost an electiion
>>1291952>Says the member of a party whose president wanted to suspend the constitution because he lost an electiionwhat party am I a member of? And who wanted to suspend the constitution because he lost an election?
>>1291952Saying that the constitution doesn't apply in her state is good?
